Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1887-10-08
WHOSE FAULT IS ITT

During a long sojourn in this
State we have seldom seen an edi-
torial which struck 80 keenly and
concisely at the root of an establish
ed evil, as the following. 1t should
be read by litigants and lawyers
and according to our notion IL
would do no harm If it were incor-
porafed in the Statutes Of Nevada as
a preface. It is from Yesterdays
Enterprise and is as follows:
Yesterday w. HI. Blauyelt and
Richard Mercer were indicted by
the Grand Jury for perjury. Mr..
Blauvelt was arrested and placed
under 50 900 bonds. Mr.. Mercer
is in San Francisco, but will doubt
less appear on the Comstock at
once and furnish the necessary bail.
We understand that the indict-
ments were on the fact that the par
ties indicted swore to a certain an
swer in the case of Ross VS.. the
Bank of Gold Hill, wherein the
answer sets up certain things which
we're proven false upon the trial OF
the case. To make this thing palmer
for instance, the answer to the
complaint in that case, set up, that
the Bank of Gold Hill virtually
ceased business after October, 1879,
and they ewore in that answer that
il did, but when the trial of the
case came on it was proven that
one had an account with the bank
as late as June l6, 1888, and that
the other conducted the business OF
the bank down to, and including
the 9Th of December, 1886.
But there are more hands to
blame in a matter of this kind than
appear upon the surface. A client
goes to lawyer and states his case.
He cannot make the hand of his
lawyer strong unless he states the
whole truth. If he fails to do this
he subjects his counsel to the liapil'
ity of being "surprised" by coun-
sci on the other side. The COM
plant in the case is made out, and
the lawyer goes to work, and fol
answer denies everything-he de-
MES the existence of his client, al
most. To hear an answer in q case
one would think that the complain
ant was entirely mistaken with re
gard to the identity of the part.
complained Of. The lawyer thel
asks his client to swear to the an
swer and sign it. This is done II
nine cases out of ten pro forma
Just like the Lords Prayer is to
often mumbled. He raises hi
right hand and places his left upo
his heart and swears that che hs
heard the foregoing read, and tia
the same is true of his own know
edge, and as to those matters whic
he does not know of his own pc
sonal knowledge, he believes thel
to be true" That is the substant
of the oath he takes.
1t would naturally be suppose
that men would be careful in takir
such an oath as that, particular
when "the foregoing enumerat
a pack of lies-all born in the bra
of an attorney to strengthen h
case" and help him build a reput
ton. Possibly men would be mo
careful if the lies sworn to as trut
worked contrary to their sense
acquisitiveness.
The question then comes up, vi
is to blame, client or counsel? i
client shows a friendly, confidi
disposition to follow the advice
his counsel blindly. Why? Plainl
because the paper is drawn by cou
sci in his favor. III this is not |
why do not clients substantiate
truthful complaint sometimes? E
it mus. be coded that clients ha
no lack of opportunity to smoe
their ruffied consciences by numb
less precedents-more than tn
by custom; absolute custom-it
the style; a man would be out
fashion if he didn't do it